The First Amendment:
More Than A Political Statement

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

I’m sure to get into trouble for this one, but that’s what I do. Causing reaction and prompting debate is a healthy exercise, which keeps the mind and the democracy fit. It’s alright to disagree. It’s what differentiates us from regimes like the one with which we were just at war.

That glorious First Amendment — which provides us with the freedom of speech — is as precious a part of the democratic process as the right to vote itself. It must be defended at all costs. Freedom of expression must be placed above the content of the expression. So even when one utters the most vile and ugly things, we must defend their right to utter away.

I hope my friends in the City Council understand and appreciate that.

More importantly, I hope my readers give some long, hard thought to my position which seems to be a minority one and is likely to be unpopular. 

In April, the New York City Council passed, without a single vote of dissent, a resolution introduced by Queens Councilman Tony Avella urging Visa, MasterCard, Discover and AmEx to refrain from advertising on the website of and doing business with the National Alliance.

The National Alliance is accurately described by Avella as “a neo-Nazi group.” Their website and the materials they offer for sale appeal to the basest of instincts. They promote racism and hatred. They are white supremacists and preach hate towards those who are different from them. Blacks, Latinos and Jews are often the targets of their vitriol.

The National Alliance has a right to exist. I don’t believe in anything they do, but I do believe in their right to speak, express, have a web site and sell their vile books and crap. Part of the right to speak includes the ability to disseminate information — no matter how ugly. That ability is dependent upon e-commerce, the web and charge cards.

The City Council is a potent force in this, the greatest City in the world. They approve contracts and the budget and influence or control many business decisions. Master, Visa and company do business with the City and endless business with those dependent upon the City.

For the Council to even subtly express displeasure at a business or, perhaps without intending to, suggest that City business decisions may be influenced by adherence to its resolutions, raises serious First Amendment issues.

Granted, a Council resolution approving or disapproving a political belief has no weight. President Bush went to war shortly after the Council voted to oppose it. The President does not need the Council. The Council’s endless resolutions have no bearing on City policy, but have been the source of great divisiveness within the Council. The issue of race has been more destructive within the Council than within the City itself.

However, the Council members continue to play with political resolutions while our City faces fiscal and educational crisis.

And sadly, the very liberal Council is so quick with its knee-jerk liberalism that not a single member saw fit to raise the question as to whether the Avella resolution calling upon MasterCard, Visa and the others to stop doing business with the National Alliance might just flirt with infringing on the National Alliance’s right to express itself, as well as Master and Visa’s right to express their corporate self — although that isn’t really the issue here.

The dollars controlled by our government can make or break a business. Public funds should not be used to regulate free speech. Implicit or explicit approval of a corporate political stance is inappropriate, especially when it comes to infringing on First Amendment rights.

Each Council member could stand up and shout their disdain for the National Alliance. The Council could condemn the group, although that’s not really what the Council’s job is. But to try to prevent a group from disseminating their views or selling their books is more dangerous than the words of the hateful group.

I don’t expect the Council to agree with me. However, a number of members with whom I’ve spoken did agree that the Council should have considered the First Amendment issues that I raise.

Speaker Giff Miller rejected my position and told me I was trying to limit the Council’s freedom of speech. Nice try, Giff.

Leroy Comrie agreed that had the First Amendment impact of the resolution been raised, it might have changed his vote and possibly the entire outcome.

Tony Avella clearly understood my position and agreed to disagree with me.

I believe that the Council’s desire to express its political beliefs has reached a destructive level.

My in-laws survived the Holocaust. My Jewish heritage seems more important as Moslem fanatics use terrorism in an attempt to drive the Jewish homeland into the sea. More than ever before, I know that those who express hate must be rejected.

However, rejecting hate is not stifling speech. When we infringe upon others’ right to speak, we threaten the very foundation of our wonderful democracy.

Henry Stern:
Is The MTA A Scandal Waiting To Happen?

The last several days’ news did not produce happy faces at the MTA.

Charges against the authority and the damning reports by both State Comptroller Alan Hevesi and City Comptroller William Thompson were the focus of multiple stories in a variety of news media.

The facts are that the MTA shifted several hundred million dollars from 2003 to 2004 to look poorer this year and help their case for a fare increase. Yes, they did it, but that is not a crime. This isn’t Enron; nobody is accused of taking money improperly. If the funds had not been shifted, the fare would likely have had to be increased a year later, perhaps by a larger amount.

The charges imply that the fare hike was unnecessary, while the legitimate issue is not its necessity, but its timing. But, as Mayor Bloomberg has learned, the sooner you make budget cuts or raise taxes or fees, the less onerous the eventual actions will be.

Was the MTA secretive about its budget maneuvers?  I think they were, but they were trying at the same time to set the stage for a higher fare, and to reduce wage expectations from the TWU. 

So they pleaded poverty, which they themselves had temporarily created.  

Should public agencies do that? I don’t like it, but I can’t object too seriously. 

Why should the MTA be a sitting duck for rapacious unions and professional straphangers?  

There are sound reasons why the MTA acted as it did, just as it was appropriate for the comptrollers to react as they did. Both comptrollers are in a tough competitive position with regard to advancement and when you can make page 1, or even B1, by attacking a secretive agency which has just raised fares, hey, why not?

Having said that, one must in fairness report that the MTA is no bargain either. 

It is bloated in management, and replete with dishonesty and waste in its construction practices. Some of its engineers propose vast projects which benefit mainly contractors and unions, rather than the riding public. 

But the MTA does a lot of things right – the trains and buses run safely and well, the employees have become much more polite, the stations are better lit and more attractive. The agency has many honest and dedicated employees, but there is a disconnect somewhere in management, similar to the dichotomy and aimlessness that plagued the former Board of Education before it was put out of its misery.

Katherine Lapp, the MTA’s executive director, was brought in by Governor Pataki last year to run the agency, replacing Mark Shaw, who is now the City’s deputy mayor for operations. She is a dedicated, competent and honest public servant, who did a fine job as Criminal Justice Coordinator for both Mayor Giuliani, and later for the Governor.

Her boss, real estate developer Peter Kalikow, inherited a fortune in 1982 from his father, H. J. Kalikow, a noted builder. The younger Kalikow was appointed MTA board chairman by Governor Pataki in March 2001. Kalikow is close to Pataki, but even closer to the man who picked Pataki from the obscurity of a back seat in the State Senate to become the Republican candidate for governor in 1994, former U.S. Senator Al D’Amato, a man who now represents companies who have an interest in matters involving the MTA.

It is time to look at the MTA, not demagogically to attack the first fare increase in seven years — which actually is less than it appears to be because of discounts for weekly and monthly riders.  How about looking at the management of the MTA, its capital plans and its construction costs, the size of its staff at 131 Livingston Street . . . a large office building comparable to its neighbor, 110 Livingston Street, which became a symbol of waste and bureaucracy when it housed the Board of Education.

The biggest MTA scandal of all — still not fully exposed — is the tale of 2 Broadway. We begin by asking why a public agency requires prime real estate, with spectacular views of New York harbor. 

Why, if it does need that exquisite location, didn’t the State condemn the building and thus own it free and clear, rather than entering into a multi-million dollar extended lease from a well-connected landlord? 

These question should be part of a thorough inquiry into 2 Broadway, which I would describe as the Tweed Courthouse of the 20th (or 21st) century. Perhaps it is fitting that the Board of Education is now housed at the original Tweed Courthouse, itself a symbol of waste, extravagance and graft.

Henry Stern was NYC Parks Commissioner for 15 years and a Councilmember for nine. He is founder and director of NYCivic, a good government group. He can be reached at: starquest@nycivic.org.